[lamford]

---

The defence began with the ace, king and another diamond. Declarer won, drew trumps in two rounds and led the two of hearts. West played the eight, and declarer said, "small," and corrected it to "sorry, queen" about a second later, before dummy had a chance to play. I was not present with a stop-watch obviously, and one second might well have been half a second, and I would have considered that it was quite likely to have been "in the same breath" as the old rule used to state.

Was the queen of hearts declarer's incontrovertible intention?

[Tramticket]

No.

Declarer's mind had wandered.

[FelicityR]

I believe the legal term "beyond reasonable doubt" applies here. Declarer's mind might have wandered, but as a defender I would accept the revised card in the interests of fair play. Declarer would never had wanted to play small here, so a declarer having rectified the announcement promptly before dummy had a chance to offer a card from the table should be allowed to continue with the revised card.

For a defender to try to profit from a situation like this is not in the interests of playing bridge in a fair and friendly manner. I would be horrified if, as a declarer, a defender had called the TD here. We all make mistakes when playing the cards. The intention to play the ♥Q should be paramount to what was actually said, especially if the error was rectified quickly before the opponents had played a card.

[barmar]

Dummy took more than a second to play the card declarer called? That also seems like dummy was assisting by giving declarer time to realize their error.

[axman]

FelicityR, on 2019-December-17, 10:20, said:

I believe the legal term "beyond reasonable doubt" applies here. Declarer's mind might have wandered, but as a defender I would accept the revised card in the interests of fair play. Declarer would never had wanted to play small here, so a declarer having rectified the announcement promptly before dummy had a chance to offer a card from the table should be allowed to continue with the revised card.

For a defender to try to profit from a situation like this is not in the interests of playing bridge in a fair and friendly manner. I would be horrified if, as a declarer, a defender had called the TD here. We all make mistakes when playing the cards. The intention to play the ♥Q should be paramount to what was actually said, especially if the error was rectified quickly before the opponents had played a card.

Many folks tend to think of fair play as: I give you one point today and expect 100 points tomorrow. Such an occurrence took place at the '99 team trials and much hatred resulted. There is a legitimate reason to play small- dropping the ace stiff. So, an incontrovertible standard would not be met. The reason for alternating turns is to allocate them 'fairly'; so, to give a player an unfair number of turns ought to require some extraordinary circumstance like it cannot be avoided (for instance a remedy for an infraction) or when it strongly appears that only one turn was taken (insta correction).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-December-17, 10:22, said:

Dummy took more than a second to play the card declarer called? That also seems like dummy was assisting by giving declarer time to realize their error.

I was not present at the table, and the expression used by declarer was "immediately". A second is quite a short time, less than the time the average dummy takes to process the instruction and carry it out. If you rule that declarer has to play low here, then it is pretty hard to find a situation where declarer's "different intention is incontrovertible". Perhaps readers would like to suggest an example of the latter.

[pescetom]

I'm with tramticket here.
Declarer changed his intention, however carelessly established.
When playing from his own hand the question would not even arise, yet the disattention is identical.

[lamford]

axman, on 2019-December-17, 11:42, said:

There is a legitimate reason to play small- dropping the ace stiff.

You are right. It is quite likely that West was silent throughout with seven hearts and East was silent throughout with seven clubs, and West, with a club void, did not play a heart to East for a club ruff. And he is still making ten tricks if the ace is stiff, whichever card he plays.

[sanst]

FelicityR, on 2019-December-17, 10:20, said:

We all make mistakes when playing the cards. The intention to play the ♥Q should be paramount ...

Yes, and when we make mistakes, it costs. That’s actually one of the basic rules of the game, of any game in fact. If intentions are to be paramount, there will be a lot of changes of play.
I’m sorry, but I think that your reasoning is nonsensical. Whatever the intention is, if you say something else, that’s your fault and you should accept the consequences of it without murmur. And to be horrified if a TD is called, is even worse. The TD SHOULD be called in this situation.

[FelicityR]

sanst, on 2019-December-17, 12:37, said:

Yes, and when we make mistakes, it costs. That’s actually one of the basic rules of the game, of any game in fact. If intentions are to be paramount, there will be a lot of changes of play.
I’m sorry, but I think that your reasoning is nonsensical. Whatever the intention is, if you say something else, that’s your fault and you should accept the consequences of it without murmur. And to be horrified if a TD is called, is even worse. The TD SHOULD be called in this situation.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Perhaps I didn't look at lamford's forum post in every context. My sincere apologies. Obviously, if this hand was played in any important tournament the TD needs to called. And yes, dummy may have hesitated without showing it so as to allow declarer time to change his or her mind.

At basic club level we all have a desire to win, but I personally wouldn't call the TD if I were a defender if a) declarer changed his/her mind very quickly b) dummy hadn't given me the expression that they ignored declarer's instruction so as to give declarer a second chance.

We are all prone to being absentminded from time to time, and especially at the clubs where I play as many of the members including myself are senior citizens. There is a discreet difference between a 'senior moment' and a general lack of concentration.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2019-December-17, 09:20, said:

I was not present with a stop-watch obviously, but I would have considered that it was quite likely to have been "in the same breath" as the old rule used to state.

Was the queen of hearts declarer's incontrovertible intention?

That “in the same breath” clause was dropped eons ago and with reason. So, why still use this criterion? Good intentions aren’t enough, you have to expres them. If you say “low”, whatever your intention, you’ve played low. I don’t revoke intentionally, but if I do, I’ve to live with the consequences. And why would you allow a change of play by the declarer and not by the defenders? All players are equal but some are more equal than the others?

[johnu]

axman, on 2019-December-17, 11:42, said:

There is a legitimate reason to play small- dropping the ace stiff. So, an incontrovertible standard would not be met.

There is no bridge reason to play small. Trumps were drawn, and all declarer had to do was claim the rest, conceding a trick to ♥A. Playing small is a legitimate reason to try to lose 2 heart tricks.

[nige1]

lamford 'The defence began with the ace, king and another diamond. Declarer won, drew trumps in two rounds and led the two of hearts. West played the eight, and declarer said, "small," and corrected it to "sorry, queen" about a second later, before dummy had a chance to play. I was not present with a stop-watch obviously, but I would have considered that it was quite likely to have been "in the same breath" as the old rule used to state.
Was the queen of hearts declarer's incontrovertible intention?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some of us think that mechanical-error laws should e scrapped. e.g. When a player makes a mistake, the director should not allow him to correct it, especially when that decision depends mainly on the TD's subjective judgment.
Directors should apply the law as it is, however, and players must abide by the result.
Arguably, in this context, a second is a long time to correct a mechanical error, and if Dummy made no attempt to play "low", then he might be attempting to influence the play (as Barmar points out).
Both these questions are matters of judgement for the director and many directors would rule in favour of declarer, as the law entitles them to do.

---

[Cyberyeti]

IMO declarer only gets it back in a circumstance I'm sure Lamford would have mentioned. Some people with limited vision ask opps to call the card as played, and Ace and eight can sound quite similar.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-December-17, 13:55, said:

That “in the same breath” clause was dropped eons ago and with reason. So, why still use this criterion? Good intentions aren’t enough, you have to expres them. If you say “low”, whatever your intention, you’ve played low. I don’t revoke intentionally, but if I do, I’ve to live with the consequences. And why would you allow a change of play by the declarer and not by the defenders? All players are equal but some are more equal than the others?

While the "same breath" language was dropped, I still never have a problem with accepting something like "Heart, I mean high heart" -- it's clear that the mouth just got ahead of the brain, and declarer's intent is incontrovertible.

But if there's any pause, it indicates a brain fart rather than a slip of the tongue, and they don't get to take it back.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-December-17, 17:08, said:

IMO declarer only gets it back in a circumstance I'm sure Lamford would have mentioned. Some people with limited vision ask opps to call the card as played, and Ace and eight can sound quite similar.

In Italian we have the same potential risk but more so with King (Re) and 3 (tre) - of course if there was such a mishap the TD would allow a change of card. In practice the player with limited (or no) vision knows when to ask for confirmation and his sighted parter is also careful to prevent such incidents.

[chrism]

It is pretty much incontrovertible that when declarer led the H2, he intended to call the queen from dummy. However, explicitly calling "small" means that his mind had wandered between leading and calling, in my opinion. Had he called "heart" or "play" I might give consideration to the possibility that he had mis-designated rather than losing concentration, but it still would not be clear-cut. If he had called "heart" while making some sort of upward gesture, I would certainly rule in declarer's favour.

"Intention" is what you meant at the instant of the action in question, not what you intended at any earlier (or later!) moment.

[lamford]

chrism, on 2019-December-18, 18:23, said:

It is pretty much incontrovertible that when declarer led the H2, he intended to call the queen from dummy. However, explicitly calling "small" means that his mind had wandered between leading and calling, in my opinion. Had he called "heart" or "play" I might give consideration to the possibility that he had mis-designated rather than losing concentration, but it still would not be clear-cut. If he had called "heart" while making some sort of upward gesture, I would certainly rule in declarer's favour.

"Intention" is what you meant at the instant of the action in question, not what you intended at any earlier (or later!) moment.

I don't think there is any difference between "heart", "play" or "small" in the Law. They all mean "the smallest heart". The TD was called, but I was not the TD, but in our streamlined appeal system at the club, where the original TD ruling is referred to two County TDs first, I was one of the two consulted. The original TD ruled that it was declarer's "incontrovertble intention" to play the queen, and he "misspoke", and the two County TDs upheld his decision. It would seem from the responses on here, for which I thank all, that "incontrovertible intention" never applies, as this to me is an example of where it would. I surveyed half a dozen leading players in the London Super League last night. None knew the Laws of course, but also none would have sought to gain a trick here. I know for certain that Michael Rosenberg would never claim this. And as Boye Brogeland would say "Secretary Birds, go home". Food for thought.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2019-December-19, 12:03, said:

I don't think there is any difference between "heart", "play" or "small" in the Law. They all mean "the smallest heart". The TD was called, but I was not the TD, but in our streamlined appeal system at the club, where the original TD ruling is referred to two County TDs first, I was one of the two consulted. The original TD ruled that it was declarer's "incontrovertble intention" to play the queen, and he "misspoke", and the two County TDs upheld his decision. It would seem from the responses on here, for which I thank all, that "incontrovertible intention" never applies, as this to me is an example of where it would. I surveyed half a dozen leading players in the London Super League last night. None knew the Laws of course, but also none would have sought to gain a trick here. I know for certain that Michael Rosenberg would never claim this. And as Boye Brogeland would say "Secretary Birds, go home". Food for thought.

• The law-breaker (declarer) drew attention to his own infraction ("Sorry, Queen"). Under current law, whether or not the defenders were secretary birds, they were right to comply with the law and call the director.
• Under current law, directors seem to rule unanimously, in favour of law-breakers, whenever there is sufficient scope for judgement. Admittedly, directors are meant to use their judgement. And players are beginning to take the trend on board.
• Had the director ruled that defenders were entitled to the trick (as many posters believe) then defenders should be allowed to accept, it without incurring criticism
• If players suspect that director is mistaken, then they are entitled to appeal his ruling, without adverse comment.
• Surprizing that Lamford's SuperLeaguers approve Declarer's successful attempt "to gain a trick" but criticize defenders' vain efforts to retrieve it. As declarer, Michael Rosenberg would probably accept his mistake, with good grace.

[Tramticket]

lamford, on 2019-December-19, 12:03, said:

None knew the Laws of course, but also none would have sought to gain a trick here.

I fully agree with them. But you asked what the Law states rather than "would you want to vigorously enforce the law?".

But, whilst I wouldn't seek rectification in this situation, I would be perfectly sanguine if my opponent did call the director - who would have no option but to enforce the law.